Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

I don't. Some of them censor less than others and are prepared to allow some serious scrutiny and criticism. Others are frankly bigots who treat all those un-persuaded of their claims (some of which are not even found in the Bible) as 'trolls'.

CHartsil wrote:Does anyone know of one single creationist run facebook page or youtube channel that does not engage in censorship?

I can't think of any stronger cognitive dissonance than holding a position that you yourself recognize cannot stand up to scrutiny.

it is called editing not censorship. Creationists are free to place on their website the content they want to have and they do not need the permission of those who disagree with them to edit what information is placed on their pages. I know of far too many non-creationist sites that do the exact same thing or they ban you outright with no chance to defend yourself.

CHartsil wrote:Does anyone know of one single creationist run facebook page or youtube channel that does not engage in censorship?

I can't think of any stronger cognitive dissonance than holding a position that you yourself recognize cannot stand up to scrutiny.

it is called editing not censorship. Creationists are free to place on their website the content they want to have and they do not need the permission of those who disagree with them to edit what information is placed on their pages. I know of far too many non-creationist sites that do the exact same thing or they ban you outright with no chance to defend yourself.

Silent editing or selective censorship of the opposition, unless the person has behaved in an appalling abusive fashion and failed to back up their accusations with facts, is reprehensible. If YECs have the truth about everything it should not be necessary either.

CHartsil wrote:Silent editing or selective censorship of the opposition, unless the person has behaved in an appalling abusive fashion and failed to back up their accusations with facts, is reprehensible. If YECs have the truth about everything it should not be necessary either.

I am just going to address the isea expressed in that post.

One cannot say that another person does not have facts when they simply disagree with the views of those who oppose them. it has to be pre-determined and agreed upon where those facts come from and since non-creationists go to secular science for their 'facts' and the creationist doesn't there will always be a discrepancy and contradiction on what is a fact.

YEC people obey God and while we have access to facts, we also have to use faith and faith tells us that all the facts will not be known at this time. it will also tell us that secular science does not have the facts because the adherents of that research field propose an alternative and they use their scientific investigation to support their work not God's or the words of the Bible. They use their 'facts' , as they believe them to be, to thwart biblical teaching while assuming that their 'facts' are correct. Rarely do they acknowledge that their facts are false or untrue. They take their scientific work over God's word and that is their mistake not God's or the YEC person.

archaeologist55 wrote:One cannot say that another person does not have facts when they simply disagree with the views of those who oppose them. it has to be pre-determined and agreed upon where those facts come from and since non-creationists go to secular science for their 'facts' and the creationist doesn't there will always be a discrepancy and contradiction on what is a fact.

YEC people obey God and while we have access to facts, we also have to use faith and faith tells us that all the facts will not be known at this time. it will also tell us that secular science does not have the facts because the adherents of that research field propose an alternative and they use their scientific investigation to support their work not God's or the words of the Bible. They use their 'facts' , as they believe them to be, to thwart biblical teaching while assuming that their 'facts' are correct. Rarely do they acknowledge that their facts are false or untrue. They take their scientific work over God's word and that is their mistake not God's or the YEC person.

it is not the Christian who is deceived by evil.

Strange, isn't it, that creationists always claim that their position is science but always have to tell us what their religion is.

What science is it that you have turned out? You claim to have a PhD so where is it?

But you DIDN'T address the ideas in that post (which was by ME not by Chartsil). You just posted a rambling speech about what are 'facts'. When are you going to tell us why all the censoring and editing of ALL the opposition, by young earth creationist bloggers and apologists, is so necessary? Why can't the truth stand up on its own - without dishonest manipulation of conversations about science and so forth with any Christians or non-Christians who have a different view of reality to yourself? Why can't you demonstrate why people are 'wrong' instead of just proclaiming 'you are wrong'? Why are people like you so defensive? Why are YOU so unwilling to consider that you might just be wrong about topics such as Noah's flood or natural selection?

Give it up David. You are just making a fool of yourself. Besides, I did not invite you here. You expressed a wish to come here - which I supported. But you have failed to post anything that refutes anything I wrote about your recent blog post of 22 Dec.

I suggest you either start engaging with the points we are making and stop making a fool of yourself. Or retreat to the safety of your own blog (where you will no doubt continue to censor any comments I might submit there).

I made a comment under the blog on 18 July (it contained a link to this forum but somebody removed the link from the post) and Tim Chaffey answered as follows on 19 July:"Ashley,The lost squadron video at the Ark explains the issue you mention. The planes were landed (not crashed, the first one flipped because the landing gear caught, so the rest landed on their bellies) closer to the coast. And yes, the precipitation there is much higher today than it is in central Greenland where the cores are generally taken, as mentioned in the video at the exhibit. But there are at least two problems with your objections. First, it doesn’t change the fact that dozens of “annual layers/rings” can form in a year as observed in the areas that receive higher snowfall. So you must assume that for 110,000 years or so that the interior of Greenland only received enough snow for one layer to form per year. That leads to the second problem. If there was a worldwide Flood in Noah’s day (and there was), then the Ice Age caused by that Flood would have generated much more snowfall throughout the interior of Greenland in the first few centuries following the Flood due to the warmer ocean temps and cooler air temps over land. This is all explained in the exhibit, so my claims are hardly a scam. Your attempt to explain it away is simply an attempt to dodge the real issue: “annual” layers can form rapidly and therefore cannot be used to accurately determine the age of the ice sheets.Simply stating that my claim about migrating kangaroos is “beyond preposterous” does not make it so. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation and consistent with biblical parameters, but it doesn’t fit within your millions of years paradigm so you think it is absurd. Your response tells more about your bias than anything else.I’ll look at your link and decide whether to include it later. Obviously, I don’t have time to address every claim made by anyone and everyone who posts a link in my comments section."

I then responded as below:"TimI would be grateful if you would back up your claim – not with a YEC article but with peer reviewed findings – that dozens of snow/ice layers have been observed to be deposited in Greenland in a single year (and not even in the places where ice core data are obtained).There has also never been any recent ice age glaciation that was accompanied by warmer than normal polar sea temperatures. And real ice ages tend to produce less precipitation in the arctic (and Antarctica), not more. Also there is no ice age in Genesis – absolutely none.Simply saying an explanation concerning kangaroos is not preposterous does not make it not preposterous, sorry. For one thing the continents were in their present positions 4,500 years ago.My bias is simply in favour of facts – and against highly imaginary apologetics scams.I trust you will view that BCSE link I tried to post and see all the scientific questions that Answers in Genesis have dodged.Ashley"

My prompt reply of 19 July. Except that it CANNOT be read at the blog - leaving Chaffey as having the 'last word' on these matters. Because Chaffey is SITTING on my comment instead of addressing its contents.

https://www.facebook.com/TimChaffeyAuthor/I also went to Chaffey's Facebook page to query what was happening (or not happening). I've made a number of observations there in response to some comments he made there on 20 July. On 20 July in response to my opening comments Chaffey informed me:"Ashley, you'll need to learn to exercise some patience. I moderate every comment left on my blog, which I operate in my free time. Some of them will sit for several days or even weeks depending on when I have time to get to them. That particular post has already become one of the busiest I have ever written and there are more than a dozen comments on that post alone still waiting for my approval that were submitted prior to your second comment. If there are some comments that were left and approved after your second comment, it is probably because they were brief and needed a short response or did not require a response at all. So you'll need to wait your turn, although I'm sure you'd be happy to add me to your list of Young-Earth Creationists who have banned you from their comments section. I did not claim that you made those comments. There are many other people who commented on it besides you, and there are a handful that were vulgar and were cut. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have many other things to do than to worry about getting into a pointless argument with you again over issues that you aren't interested in listening to what I have to say. If/when I get around to your comment, I will post it and respond to it, but since it's the same old argument time and time again, there really is not much point in getting into it. If you are just going to ridicule my beliefs instead of having a real discussion, then there isn't much point in carrying on."

I have made the following further comment today, 24 July:"http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1580#commentsEither you are failing to moderate a series of new comments under this blog post made by various people including myself since as early as 19 July. Or you are deliberately silently censoring my attempted post of 19 July where I challenged your own claims made against my original comment - and don't even have the guts to admit what you are doing in the name of young earth creationism and the 'ark encounter'. I know which I believe is the more plausible scenario."

After seeing the above, Chaffey published my comment of 19 July under his blog and made a lengthy response.

I have made a further response on his Facebook page. It reads as follows:"I see that after reading my comment above you have finally allowed my comment after I protested at the BCSE. But you reveal your bad faith by falsely pretending that I am not engaging in 'serious discussion' and saying that you will probably not allow any further comments under your blog. I will expose your dishonest fact-hating behaviour at the BCSE forum - again. As for the snow layers where those planes crashed, they are irrelevant to the age of the interior Greenland ice sheet because the ice cores used for climate research are from the deep ice hundreds of miles from the moist coastal weather patterns. And weather patterns throughout Greenland were not affected by any 'post-flood ice age' because no such thing ever happened - it is another YEC made-up scam. You also accuse me of 'not' backing up claims - including that your kangaroo model is beyond preposterous. Yet I informed you and others days ago by email that you failed to offer any map showing that imagined somewhat lower sea levels 4,500 years or less ago (but that never happened) would provide the necessary land bridges from Ararat to the Australian continent ie that all the sea crossings involved are sufficiently narrow and shallow. You have ignored that point. You also falsely accuse me "He has repeatedly spammed me and many of my colleagues". No. Asking awkward questions about what many people rightly view as pseudo-scientific claims is NOT 'spamming' (but the accusation suggests that AiG CANNOT deal with those questions so they refuse even to try). The person who refuses serious discussion (unless people agree with your far-fetched models and claims) is NOT me - it is you. And the people who are arrogant, unaccountable and refusing serious scrutiny are groups like 'Answers in Genesis'. Anyone who does try to scrutinise AiG is either totally ignored or if that does not work is badmouthed as a 'spammer'. I did not wish to jump any queue - I was sceptical that (under a blog dated 8 July) there still WAS any queue of posts awaiting moderation. (I have saved this text.)"

PS at 12.08 am 25 July:I was going to add a comment at his Facebook along the lines of "I know how inordinately fond YECs at AiG and elsewhere are of censorship and blocking any criticisms and serious challenges even when the enquirer is not abusive. But if I have misjudged you, I am sorry." However he appears to have deleted ALL my comments from his Facebook page. So - unless they re-appear - I doubt I WAS misjudging him.

PPS at 12.12 am:Oh and the fraud has silently blocked me from making ANY further comment at his Facebook too. STANDARD AIG BEHAVIOUR FROM THESE REALITY DENYING FANATIC CHRISTIANS.

it has to be pre-determined and agreed upon where those facts come from and since non-creationists go to secular science for their 'facts' and the creationist doesn't there will always be a discrepancy and contradiction on what is a fact.

Many Young Earth Creationists go so far as to try and redefine what's a fact. Ham wants to redefine the word "science" to mean "just knowledge." That way absolutely anything can be masqueraded as science and therefore credible. They want to gain the credibility of science without actually DOING science. (And they want to redefine evolution as "religion" so that it is pulled down to their level--- and then they can start promoting their own personal religion as if it were science.)

ProfessorTertius wrote:Many Young Earth Creationists go so far as to try and redefine what's a fact. Ham wants to redefine the word "science" to mean "just knowledge." That way absolutely anything can be masqueraded as science and therefore credible. They want to gain the credibility of science without actually DOING science. (And they want to redefine evolution as "religion" so that it is pulled down to their level--- and then they can start promoting their own personal religion as if it were science.)

Indeed. It's the tactic of false equivalence. Creation "science", intelligent design..............whatever you want to call it, has been resoundingly called out for what it is - religion masquerading as science. So the current tactic appears to be to claim that science can be termed "secular" if it is at odds with the particular flavour of theism espoused by whichever individual or group is using the term "secular science".

There is no such thing as secular science. YECism is a religious, not a scientific, position.

Sorry that I have not been present for awhile. Many reasons for that plus when I tried to log in I found that I couldn't do so and finally had to get a new password sent to me. I have some time today so I will address a few posts and comments but cannot promise when I will be able to return to continue the discussion.

In the case of the remark above, there is a difference in science it is just that the unbelieving world do not accept nor acknowledge their spiritual state thus they do not accept that difference. I am not the only one who uses the term secular science but basically it identifies the science that has been developed by unbelievers who have kicked God out of the science lab.

it is a well documented fact that unbelieving scientists do not want God as a part of their work or field and when you kick the truth out of science you are left with unbelieving or secular science. The phrase 'all science is good science' is misleading and a mistaken philosophy for that would mean that what the NAZI and other despicable scientists do in the name of science cannot be declared wrong nor unethical. Nor can those scientists be accused of committing crimes against humanity for their work is scientific and all science is good science.

A lot of unbelievers may claim that isn't so but that is exactly where their philosophy leads them as they tend to be more general in nature, too lazy to make distinctions or place their colleagues in positions of being told they are violating the godly principles of right and wrong and morality and immorality. To acknowledge those principles means that an unbelieving scientist has to acknowledge the existence of God who sets the codes for humans to live by

Strange, isn't it, that creationists always claim that their position is science but always have to tell us what their religion is.

Of course we have to because we do science in light of God and his instructions. We cannot separate the two because there is no biblical commandment to do so. When we do science, truck driving, athletics and all other employment we have to follow God's instructions which include being honest, humble, what is right in God's eyes and so much more.

Our faith is part of our work for we are to follow the Spirit of Truth and not the best explanation, so yes you will get our faith with our work.

Give it up David. You are just making a fool of yourself. Besides, I did not invite you here. You expressed a wish to come here - which I supported. But you have failed to post anything that refutes anything I wrote about your recent blog post of 22 Dec.

I suggest you either start engaging with the points we are making and stop making a fool of yourself. Or retreat to the safety of your own blog (where you will no doubt continue to censor any comments I might submit there).